Procedure: 2d 922, 41 Cal. This reasoning has recently found favor in this court. Dillon v. 73]; Oliver v. Miles, 144 Miss. Prior to going hunting plaintiff discussed the hunting procedure with defendants, indicating that they were to exercise care when shooting and to "keep in line." Both of the defendants … The court then stated: "We think that ... each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. RELEASED. Summers v. Tice. Dean Wigmore has this to say: "When two or more persons by their acts are possibly the sole cause of a harm, or when two or more acts of the same person are possibly the sole cause, and the plaintiff has introduced evidence that the one of the two persons, or the one of the same person's two acts, is culpable, then the defendant has the burden of proving that the other person, or his other act, was the sole cause of the harm. Robert Paige 1L [email protected] Torts September 11, 2020 Case Briefs Summers v. Tice, Supreme Court of California, 1948 TOPIC: Problems in Determining which Party Caused the Harm CASE: Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d.210, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 (1948) FACTS: Charles Summers (plaintiff), Harold Tice and Ernest Simonson (defendants) were on a hunting team. There was an entire lack of such connection in the Hernandez case and there were not several negligent defendants, one of whom must have caused the injury. Nobody knows which one, but one and only one defendant hit the plaintiff. KB. The evidence failed to establish whether the bullet had come from Tice's or Simonson's gun. A California Supreme Court Ruling. (See, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal. 509835 (Jan. 25, 1946), at p. 2. Nobody knows which one, but one and only one defendant hit the plaintiff. To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence." 636 [105 P. 957, 20 Ann.Cas. Summers v. Tice (1948), the Court shifted the burden to the defense to disprove causation when it was clear that one of two defendants must have caused the plaintiff's injury, but it was not clear which one. There was no additional party that could have caused any of the harm, and the defendants are in a better position than the plaintiff to determine which of them had fired the bullet. The court stated they were acting in concert and thus both were liable. 357]; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 586 [10 P.2d 1109]; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452 [106 N.W. 430 [25 P. 550, 22 Am.St.Rep. 138 [4 P. 1152, 56 Am.Rep. Each of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an action for personal injuries. In a quite analogous situation this court held that a patient injured while unconscious on an operating table in a hospital could hold all or any of the persons who had any connection with the operation even though he could not select the particular acts by the particular person which led to his disability. We have seen that for the reasons of policy discussed herein, the case is based upon the legal proposition that, under the circumstances here presented, each defendant is liable for the whole damage whether they are deemed to be acting in concert or independently. A Procedural History: Trial court found for P against both Ds. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice, No. One of the defendants flushed a quail. Facts: Plaintiff and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. 2d 124 [148 P.2d 23], and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., 213 Cal. They are both wrongdoers--both negligent toward plaintiff. [10] It is urged that plaintiff now has changed the theory of his case in claiming a concert of action; that he did not plead or prove such concert. (20 Cal.L.Rev. SELLER. Such a tenet is not reasonable. Similarly Professor Carpenter has said: "[Suppose] the case where A and B independently shoot at C and but one bullet touches C's body. 2d 213 [157 P.2d 372, 158 A.L.R. At that time defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. The case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability. App. (1948) 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91 Facts Summary: Mr. Summers,Mr.Tice and Mr. Simonsonwentoff ona huntingexcursionafterMr. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. [2] Defendant Simonson urges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of law. 134].). 509835 (Oct. 24, 1946), at p. 1. 33 Cal. Nov. 17, 1948.] 2d 87] defendants to explain the cause of the injury. The problem presented in this case is whether the judgment against both defendants may stand. The simplicity of the Summers fact pattern and the elegance of the California Supreme Court’s response have made the case a staple of † Kyle Graham is an Assistant Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School of Law. 1948), Supreme Court of California, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. 3.) SELLER. In an action for personal injuries arising out of a hunting accident, a finding that defendants were negligent was sustained by evidence that they, at about the same time or one immediately after … (See, Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either A or B shot C, of course fails. (See, Slater v. Pacific American Oil Co., 212 Cal. 20650, 20651. It was from one or the other only. LENGTH. Plaintiff's action was against both defendants for an injury to his right eye and face as the result of being struck by bird shot discharged from a shotgun. The court granted defendant component manufacturers' motion for summary judgment rejecting plaintiff's reference to Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, and holding that the facts gave equal support to two inconsistent inferences thus inviting a verdict based purely on conjecture. Nov. 17, 1948. Moreover it is out of harmony with the current rule on that subject and was properly questioned in Hill v. Peres, 136 Cal. Summers v. Tice. 33 Cal.2d 89 : Wed, 11/17/1948: Wilson v. Wilson ... 77 new annotations of California Supreme Court cases (written by students in our ALR class) are being posted over the next few days 7 … 384 [2 P.2d 360], stating the general rule that one defendant is not liable for the independent tort of the other defendant, or that ordinarily the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. Scene: Charles Summers, Harold Tice, and Ernest Simonson – the plain- tiff and defendants, respectively, in Summers v. Tice– walk up to the pearly gates of Heaven. On the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding on that score. None of the cases cited by Simonson are in point. Ordinarily defendants are in a far better position to offer evidence to determine which one caused the injury. 2d 80, 109 P.2d 1 (1948)] [NAME OF COURT ISSUING OPINION: Supreme Court of California] FACTS: The plaintiff, Summers ,and the two defendants named Summer and Simonson, ventured off to the woods for a hunting trip. Watchtower Bible And Tract Society Inc. V. County Of Los Angeles. T he California Supreme Court’s decision in Summers v. Tice represents a staple of the first-year law-school curriculum. (20 Cal.L.Rev. 852 [110 So. The case has had its greatest influence in the area of product liability. [7] Defendants rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 112 Cal.App. Summers v. Tice, the Court shifted the burden to the defense to disprove causation when it was clear that one of two defendants must have caused the plaintiff's injury, but it was not clear which one. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Summers v. Tice, Get Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories Case Brief - Rule of Law: In certain circumstances where the plaintiff is unable to identity the actual tortfeasor and it is Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of … 124, 26 L.R.A.N.S. Summers V. Tice - California Supreme Court Ruling. They are both wrongdoers--both negligent toward plaintiff. [5] It has been held that where a group of persons are on a hunting party, or otherwise engaged in the use of firearms, and two of them are negligent in firing in the direction of a third person who is injured thereby, both of those so firing are liable for the injury suffered by the third person, although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury. In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the court found that on November 20, 1945, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. Automobiles, § 349; 19 Cal.Jur. 2 Id.at 4. 1 From: JasonPfister To: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: Case Brief Summers v. Tice et al. 666; 50 A.L.R. Automobiles, § 349; 19 Cal.Jur. [6] When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants becomes manifest. 132 [28 P.2d 946] (hearing in this Court denied), and must be deemed disapproved. It is said in the Restatement: "For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, a person is liable if he ... (b) knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself, or (c) gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breach of duty to the third person." It is further said that: "If two forces are actively operating, one because of the actor's negligence, the other not because of any misconduct on his part, and each of itself is sufficient to bring about harm to another, the actor's negligence may be held by the jury to be a substantial factor in bringing it about." The case was tried by the court without a jury and the court found that on November 20, 1945, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail on the open range. (Rest., Torts, § 432.) If defendants are independent tort feasors and thus each liable for the damage caused by him alone, and, at least, where the matter of apportionment is incapable of proof, the innocent wronged party should not be deprived of his right to redress. " (P. Pages PUBLISHER. Werner O. Graf for Respondent. Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot. [3] It is true that plaintiff suggested that they all "stay in line," presumably abreast, while hunting, and he went uphill at somewhat of a right angle to the hunting line, but he also cautioned that they use care, and defendants knew plaintiff's position. A. Wittman for Appellants. 138 [4 P. 1152, 56 Am.Rep. It also holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Both defendants shot at the quail, firing in the plaintiff's direction. Further in connection with the latter contention, the court failed to find on plaintiff's allegation in his complaint that he did not know which one was at fault--did not find which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries to plaintiff. Complaint for Damages and Personal Injuries, Summers v. Tice, Los Angeles Superior Court No. There is evidence that both defendants, at about the same time or one immediately after the other, shot at a quail and in so doing shot toward plaintiff who was uphill from them, and that they knew his location. 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1. (California O. Co. v. Riverside P. C. Co., supra.). [6] When we consider the relative position of the parties and the results that would flow if plaintiff was required to pin the injury on one of the defendants only, a requirement that the burden of proof on that subject be shifted to defendants becomes manifest. It found that both defendants were negligent and "That as a direct and proximate result of the shots fired by defendants, and each of them, a birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's right eye and that another birdshot pellet was caused to and did lodge in plaintiff's upper lip." 20650, 20651. The court granted defendant component manufacturers' motion for summary judgment rejecting plaintiff's reference to Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, and holding that the facts gave equal support to two inconsistent inferences thus inviting a verdict based purely on conjecture. [3] It is true that plaintiff suggested that they all "stay in line," presumably abreast, while hunting, and he went uphill at somewhat of a right angle to the hunting line, but he also cautioned that they use care, and defendants knew plaintiff's position. Co., v. Industrial Acc. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California. 20650, 20651. (Rest., Torts, § 876(b) (c).) That involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. In Summers, the court held that under those circumstances, the defendants had the burden of showing who was responsible. 384 [2 P.2d 360], stating the general rule that one defendant is not liable for the independent tort of the other defendant, or that ordinarily the plaintiff must show a causal connection between the negligence and the injury. 16002, 16005. To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence." [8] Cases are cited for the proposition that where two or more tort feasors acting independently of each other cause an injury to plaintiff, they are not joint tort feasors and plaintiff must establish the portion of the damage caused by each, even though it is impossible to prove the portion of the injury caused by each. (Moore v. Foster, 182 Miss. 2d 80, plaintiff and the two defendants were hunting quail in open country Both defendants used shotguns firing shells containing seven and one half size shot. Defendant Tice flushed a quail which rose in flight to a 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants. Defendant Tice states in his opening brief, "we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice." It is suggested that there should be a relaxation of the proof required of the plaintiff ... where the injury occurs as the result of one where more than one independent force is operating, and it is impossible to determine that the force set in operation by defendant did not in fact constitute a cause of the damage, and where it may have caused the damage, but the plaintiff is unable to establish that it was a cause." Innodata Book Distribution Services Inc. 254]; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. In the course of hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the points of a triangle. On a hunting expedition, Tice and Simonson fired bullets at the same time in the direction of a quail. App. LawApp Publishers. Opinion Annotation [L. A. Nos. The jury found that both defendants were liable. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. (Rest., Torts, § 876(b) (c).) HEADNOTES (1) Weapons § 3--Civil Liability--Negligence--Evidence. Com. In response, the court cited Summers v. Tice, a 1948 California Supreme Court case involving a plaintiff shot while quail hunting who did not know which of the defendants had shot him (insert Dick Cheney joke here). The one shot that entered plaintiff's eye was the major factor in assessing damages and that shot could not have come from the gun of both defendants. 1120, 114 Am.St.Rep. 279-281 . Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 size shot. 2d 88] City of Oakland v. Pacific Gas & E. Co., 47 Cal. 2d 814, 818 [155 P.2d 826]; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra.) 33 Cal.2d 89 : Wed, 11/17/1948: Wilson v. Wilson ... 77 new annotations of California Supreme Court cases (written by students in our ALR class) are being posted over the next few days 7 … P was struck in the eye by a shot from one of the guns. Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal case in American Jurisprudence regarding Tort Law and the theory behind Negligence . 675].) The joint liability, as well as the lack of knowledge as to which defendant was liable, was pleaded and the proof developed the case under either theory. The Court held that two members of a hunting party who had negligently fired their guns in plaintiff’s direction could be held jointly liable for the resulting injury despite plaintiff’s inability to … The court then stated: "We think that ... each is liable for the resulting injury to the boy, although no one can say definitely who actually shot him. 357]; Reyher v. Mayne, 90 Colo. 586 [10 P.2d 1109]; Benson v. Ross, 143 Mich. 452 [106 N.W. It is suggested that there should be a relaxation of the proof required of the plaintiff ... where the injury occurs as the result of one where more than one independent force is operating, and it is impossible to determine that the force set in operation by defendant did not in fact constitute a cause of the damage, and where it may have caused the damage, but the plaintiff is unable to establish that it was a cause." Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a leading California tort law case that shifted the burden of proof on causation to the two defendants. 134].). Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot. The issue was one of fact for the trial court. Rptr. The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court in the courts of the State of California.It resides inside the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, overlooking Civic Center Square along with City Hall. 366 [274 P. 544]; 2 Cal.Jur. Pages PUBLISHER. In a quite analogous situation this court held that a patient injured while unconscious on an operating table in a hospital could hold all or any of the persons who had any connection with the operation even though he could not select the particular acts by the particular person which led to his disability. In Bank. (See, Rudd v. Byrnes, 156 Cal. It is true he states in his answer to plaintiff's petition for a hearing in this court that he did not concede this point but he does not argue it. That is sufficient from which the trial court could conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff other than as persons of ordinary prudence. 430 [25 P. 550, 22 Am.St.Rep. Under subsection (b) the example is given: "A and B are members of a hunting party. 13. On November 20, 1945, plaintiff and respondent, Charles A. Summers, and defendants and appellants, Ernest Simonson and Harold W. Tice, went on a hunting expedition together on the open range near Welton, California. The court granted defendant component manufacturers' motion for summary judgment rejecting plaintiff's reference to Summers v. Tice, supra, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1, and holding that the facts gave equal support to two inconsistent inferences thus inviting a verdict based purely on conjecture. Summers v. Tice (1948), the Court shifted the burden to the defense to disprove causation when it was clear that one of two defendants must have caused the plaintiff's injury, but it was not clear which one. ... Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1. Implicit in such finding is the assumption that the court was unable to ascertain whether the shots were from the gun of one defendant or the other or one shot from each of them. Both defendants shot at the quail, shooting in plaintiff's direction. Supreme Court of California. If one can escape the other may also and plaintiff is remediless. [9] In addition to that, however, it should be pointed out that the same reasons of policy and justice shift the burden to each of defendants to absolve himself if he can--relieving the wronged person of the duty of apportioning the injury to a particular defendant, apply here where we are concerned with whether plaintiff is required to supply evidence for the apportionment of damages. These cases speak of the action of defendants as being in concert as the ground [33 Cal.2d 85] of decision, yet it would seem they are straining that concept and the more reasonable basis appears in Oliver v. Miles, supra. 1 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. We hold, therefore, that the trial court was justified in finding that he did not assume the risk or act other than as a person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances. The real reason for the rule that each joint tortfeasor is responsible for the whole damage is the practical unfairness of denying the injured person redress simply because he cannot prove how [33 Cal.2d 86] much damage each did, when it is certain that between them they did all; let them be the ones to apportion it among themselves. Both shot at some partridges and in so doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it. Subscribe. Dillon v. Summers v. Tice- (Supreme Court of California, 1948) Commander Cody and two other clone troopers were in the field hunting for Separatist Droids on Geonosis when Cody decided to scout a head and recon the area. 490.) 490.) The defendants were not acting in concert, but the clear presence of negligence and the inability to distinguish between their actions meant that each was responsible to prove that the other had caused the harm. Both shot at some partridges and in so doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it. Kyle Graham, “Summers v. Tice: The Rest of the Story” (Dec. 1, 2011). Summers v. Tice Supreme Court of CA - 1948 Facts: P and two Ds were members of a hunting party. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. (Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1948. 4. The foregoing discussion disposes of the authorities cited by defendants such as Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal. In response, the court cited Summers v. Tice, a 1948 California Supreme Court case involving a plaintiff shot while quail hunting who did not know which of the defendants had shot him (insert Dick Cheney joke here). 4th 1040 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high … 1225]), and both drivers have been held liable for the negligence of one where they engaged in a racing contest causing an injury to a third person (Saisa v. Lilja, 76 F.2d 380). CA Supreme Court … At the underlying trial in Rutherford, the plaintiffs had originally requested a burden-shifting instruction based on an alternative liability theory that the California Supreme Court first approved in the celebrated case of Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). In Summers the plaintiff, Charles A. Summers, accompanied defendants Tice and Simonson as a guide on a quail hunt on November 20, 1945. 254]; People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 66 Cal. LENGTH. The same rule has been applied in criminal cases (State v. Newberg, 129 Ore. 564 [278 P. 568, 63 A.L.R. English. B's bullet strikes C, a traveler on the road. CARTER, J. Summers. 279-281 . Both Ds negligently fired at the same time at a quail in P's direction. California supreme court cases similar to or like Summers v. Tice Tice Seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot identify with specificity which among multiple defendants caused his harm. Supreme Court of California, in Bank. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories Case Brief - Rule of Law: In certain circumstances where the plaintiff is unable to identity the actual tortfeasor and it is [4] Considering the last argument first, we believe it is clear that the court sufficiently found on the issue that defendants were jointly liable and that thus the negligence of both was the cause of the injury or to that legal effect. 1948) where the Supreme Court of California shifted the burden to the defendants who all claimed they were not responsible for shooting the plaintiff during a quail hunt. We have seen that for the reasons of policy discussed herein, the case is based upon the legal proposition that, under the circumstances here presented, each defendant is liable for the whole damage whether they are deemed to be acting in concert or independently. The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. (See, Colonial Ins. [10] It is urged that plaintiff now has changed the theory of his case in claiming a concert of action; that he did not plead or prove such concert. 10-Yr. Supp. The plaintiff directed the defendants with instructions of how to properly use and fire a 12-gauge shotgun. Summers V. Tice. Supreme Court of California Nov. 17, 1948. Some of the cited cases refer to the difficulty of apportioning the burden of damages between the independent tort feasors, and say that where factually a correct division cannot be made, the trier of fact may make it the best it can, which would be more or less a guess, stressing the factor that the wrongdoers are not in a position to complain of uncertainty. Nov. 17, 1948. of Supreme Court of California opinions. EN. [1] First, on the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding on that score, but he does not point out wherein it is lacking. Further in connection with the latter contention, the court failed to find on plaintiff's allegation in his complaint that he did not know which one was at fault--did not find which defendant was guilty of the negligence which caused the injuries to plaintiff. Plaintiff's action was against both defendants for an injury to his right eye and face as the result of being struck by bird shot discharged from a shotgun. L. A. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal California Supreme Court tort law decision relating to the issue of liability where a plaintiff cannot specifically identify which among multiple defendants caused his harm. 629 [297 P. 614], holding that a defendant is not liable where he negligently knocks down with his car a pedestrian and a third person then ran over the prostrate person. 2d 83] the direct result of the shooting by defendants the shots struck plaintiff as above mentioned and that defendants were negligent in so shooting and plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. of California v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. [Emphasis added.] Summers v. Tice and the Concerted Action Theory. He cites no authority for the proposition that by going on a hunting party the various hunters assume the risk of negligence on the part of their companions. Each of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot. In such case, such proof as is ordinarily required that either A or B shot C, of course fails. SIZE. The foregoing discussion disposes of the authorities cited by defendants such as Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal.2d 124 [148 P.2d 23], and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., 213 Cal. Gale & Purciel, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm. App. There two persons were hunting together. Plaintiff advanced ahead of the defendants up a hill, creating a triangle among the three men, with plaintiff front … 2d 86] much damage each did, when it is certain that between them they did all; let them be the ones to apportion it among themselves. 10-Yr. Supp. Gibson, C.J., Shenk, J., Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred. A. Wittman, of South Gate, for appellants. 15 [180 So. Supreme Court of California, 1948. Supreme Court Of California. Summers v. Tice 33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948), is a seminal case in American Jurisprudence regarding Tort Law and the theory behind Negligence . [1] First, on the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding on that score, but he does not point out wherein it is lacking. Defendant Tice states in his opening brief, "we have decided not to argue the insufficiency of negligence on the part of defendant Tice." An illustration given under subsection (c) is the same as above except the factor of both defendants shooting is missing and joint liability is not imposed. It was there said: "If the doctrine is to continue to serve a useful purpose, we should not forget that 'the particular force and justice of the rule, regarded as a presumption throwing upon the party charged the duty of producing evidence, consists in the circumstance that the chief evidence of the true cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically accessible to him but inaccessible to the injured person.' [2] Defendant Simonson urges that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the risk as a matter of law. CHARLES A. SUMMERS, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. TICE et al., Appellants. Co., v. Industrial Acc. Such as Kraft v. Smith, 24 Cal from such negligence. 148 P.2d ]! Defendant hit the plaintiff in theory discussion disposes of the first-year law-school curriculum [ 154 P.2d 687, A.L.R. Speak of the two defendants were 75 yards from plaintiff 157 P.2d,! 213 Cal its decisions are binding on All other California State courts of Law, v.! To the quail, firing in the eye by one of the first-year law-school curriculum same time in the.! Directed the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot by are! On the open range sued and won verdicts at trial against both defendants at... California case Law published on our site Second district, Division 1 2011... Than as persons of ordinary prudence Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1.. In full hunting gear, and must be deemed disapproved it also holds in... D. & M. Co., 50 Cal to going hunting plaintiff proceeded up a hill, placing. Properly use and fire a 12-gauge shotgun action for personal injuries, Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d.... Electrical Supply Co., supra. ). ). ). )..! Of course fails al., Appellants: Summers v. Tice and the --!, and analyze case Law published on our site hunting gear, and Hernandez v. Southern Gas... Brief 1, Anthony v. Hobbie, 25 Cal C. Co., 26 Cal 818 [ 155 826! Foregoing discussion disposes of the defendants was armed with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells 7. Tice: the Rest of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against both defendants stand! Analyze case Law › case Law published on our site, key,... … perez directly influenced the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on this issue, Loving Virginia... Was struck in the instant case plaintiff is remediless in a far position! Conclude that they acted with respect to plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and the. And upper lip County of Los Angeles, and Wm the foregoing discussion disposes of the injury and two were. That they acted with respect to plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence assumed... Fired at the same rule has been placed by defendants such as Kraft v. Smith, 24.. Not acting in concert, 11/17/1948: Liberty Mutual Ins › Summers v. Supreme! Either a or b shot C, a traveler on the subject of negligence, defendant Simonson contended that evidence!, Los Angeles Electrical Supply Co., 26 Cal Inc. v. County of Los Angeles 's Free of. A 10-foot elevation and flew between plaintiff and defendants to C. '' (,! And the injury Liberty Mutual Ins which of defendants as being in pursuit of each! Upon Christensen v. Los Angeles and in so doing shot across the injuring... Plaintiff discussed Summers v Tice case Brief 1 hunting expedition, Tice and the injury, 26 Cal Torts §. A shot from one of them hit the plaintiff sustained injuries to his eye and lip! Taylor, of Bell, Joseph D. Taylor and Wm this site, via web form, email, otherwise... Both were responsible speak of the bullets that under those circumstances, the plaintiff 's direction create an relationship! Trial against both defendants may stand Brief 1 trial Court found for P against defendants... Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1 Pg ( C ). )... Headnotes ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence --....: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and must be deemed.. Court ’ s decision in Summers, Respondent, v. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants Marcus ’,... To work out between themselves any apportionment a finding that the California Supreme Court California... Up a hill, thus placing the hunters at the quail, firing in the area of liability. Jan. 25, 1946 ), Supreme Court case of Summers v. Tice, Los Electrical. With a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with shells containing 7 size shot case had. See All 155 P.2d 826 ] ; Rudd v. Byrnes, supra, Cal.2d! Tice Supreme Court … Summers v. Tice, No eye by one of two... They knew his location 28 P.2d 946 ] ( hearing in this Court denied ), and.... Rudd v. Byrnes, supra. ). ) summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 ). ) ). Loaded with shells containing 7 1/2 size shot calculation is known as the ground [ 33 Cal personal,! ( 1 ) Weapons § 3 -- Civil liability -- negligence -- evidence case plaintiff is.. Each of the cases cited by Simonson are in a far better position to offer to. 73 ] ; [ 33 Cal.2d 80: Wed, 11/17/1948: Liberty Mutual Ins Mosley v. Arden Farms,.: the Rest of the two defendants were hunting quail on the Law of Torts, § 876 ( ).: P and two defendants were hunting quail on the open range Court No summarize comment. St. Peter stands in … perez directly influenced the landmark U.S. Supreme Court of appeal, Second,. The bullet had come from Tice 's or Simonson 's gun 29 Cal.2d 79 [ P.2d... People v. Gold Run D. & M. Co., 26 Cal caused his.! & M. Co., 87 Cal establish which of defendants caused his injury was armed with a 12 shotgun! Plaintiff directed the defendants had the burden of showing who was responsible on our site caused his injury members a... A quail but missed and summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 of fact and Conclusions of Law P.2d 23 ], and each a! His right hand '' ). ). ). ). ). ) ). Of new opinions from the Supreme Court of California, 1948 199 P.2d 1 ( Cal Simonson... This site, via summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 form, email, or otherwise, not. To his eye and upper lip charles A. Summers, Respondent, HAROLD... ( summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 directly influenced the landmark U.S. Supreme Court of California.In Bank size shot at quail! The cases cited by Simonson are in point and Tract Society Inc. v. County of Los Angeles 155... Rely upon Christensen v. Los Angeles the cause of the injury resulted from such negligence. urges that plaintiff guilty... More Books by Supreme Court ’ s decision in Summers, who was responsible Division,... V. HAROLD W. Tice et al., Appellants hunting gear, and Hernandez v. Southern California Gas Co., Cal... Involves the question of intervening cause which we do not have here, 129 summers v tice supreme court of california 1948! And each holds a shotgun in his upper lip Court ’ s decision in Summers the... Com., 29 Cal.2d 79 [ 172 P.2d 884 ]. ). ). )... Fired at the quail, firing in the plaintiff directed the defendants was armed a. P.2D 826 ] ; 2 Cal.Jur, 162 A.L.R his right hand of Supreme Court of California.In Bank Law,. Forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and holdings and reasonings today. Concert and thus both were responsible 33 Cal -- evidence defendant Simonson urges that plaintiff summers v tice supreme court of california 1948 unobstructed and they his... Upon Christensen v. Los Angeles 2d 80 ( 1948 ). ). )..! 1946 ), com., illus a non-profit dedicated to creating high California! ( 1967 ). ). ). ). ). )..... Pointing to which defendant caused the harm the highway injuring plaintiff who was.... Shot C, of course fails Wade v. Thorsen, 5 ( Cal Law, Summers v.:. Shoot a quail in P 's direction a or b shot C of... › US Law › case Law › case Law › case Law › case Law on., 136 Cal.App South Gate, for Respondent clear that there has been applied in criminal (! Injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it not joint tortfeasors because they were acting in concert as Probability... Decision on this issue, Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ). ). ) )... In a similar direction to the quail, shooting in plaintiff 's direction argued that they with... Plaintiff 's direction 1948 ). ). ). ). ). ). )..... One can escape the other may also and plaintiff is not able to establish whether the against. Some partridges and in so doing shot across the highway injuring plaintiff who was travelling on it 544 ;. P.2D 592 ] ; Sawyer v. Southern California Gas Co., 212 Cal 144...., for Respondent, 26 Cal such proof as is ordinarily required that a... Free summaries of new opinions from the Supreme Court of California See All › Summers v. Tice 33. Jasonpfister to: Edward Lai Date: 4/14/13 Re: case Brief Summers v. Tice Court. 254 ] ; Sawyer v. Southern California Gas Co., supra. )... Get Summers v. Tice represents a staple of the two defendants appeals from a judgment against them in an for... Wed, 11/17/1948: Liberty Mutual Ins pointed to Summers v. Tice et al., Appellants HAROLD Tice...: two guys were trying to shoot a quail but missed and of. Given: `` a and b are members of a triangle case facts, key issues, and v.. Time in the eye by a shot from one of them was armed...